Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill - Standing Committee E

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Clause 31 - Duty to share information

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 30, in clause 31, page 15, line 39, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 42, 44, 47 and 50 to 52.

Tony McNulty: Before the clock so rudely interrupted me, I was explaining how, in substance, much of what this group of amendments does is simply to add “the Treasury” where at present the Bill says “the Secretary of State”, referring to the Home Secretary. It is a technical amendment in the sense that the clause concerns the duty to share information among those agencies and services that come under the purview of the Home Office—the police service and the immigration service—with, as can be seen in clause 31(1)(c), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which naturally comes under the Treasury. It is therefore appropriate that both the Home Office and the Treasury are involved in the duty to share information. All that the amendments do, in the main, is to extend to the Treasury all references to what the Secretary of State should or should not be doing, largely because Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is involved. It is terribly straightforward.

Amendment agreed to.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in clause 31, page 15, line 43, leave out from ‘voyages’ to end of line 2 on page 16.
Subsection (4)(b) gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging further powers on what is described as “other matters”. The amendment would remove those “other matters” that the Secretary of State may specify. I should be grateful if the Minister indicates what those “other matters” could or would be.
I also seek further clarification. Under the new powers, different agencies would have a duty to share information rather than the power to share information. Given the wide-ranging nature of what “other matters” may be, does the Minister feel that there may be some confusion among the agencies as to what information they have a duty to share?

Tony McNulty: The agencies clearly hold intelligence information related to freight and travel that is not obtained under the powers specified in clause 31(4)(a)—the substantial part of the subsection—and which may be useful for the purposes of another agency or agencies. The amendment would preclude any of that information gathered under entirely different legal auspices outside the Bill’s scope. It would prevent any of the agencies sharing those data with other agencies, whether they were substantive enough to matter in terms of the pursuit of crime or of any other matter. It is overly limiting.
I suspect that the confusion arises partly from the legalese. “Other matters” does not refer generically to every other matter that anyone could possibly imagine. It means, as I understand it, other matters germane to the existent and statutory base of each and every one of those agencies. Given that the clause is all about the duty to share information above and beyond that alluded to in other parts of the clause, the amendment would limit things in such a way as to render the duty to share not quite redundant, but extremely restricted. I am pretty sure that that is not the intention. The hon. Gentleman is trying to narrow the clause from the perspective—albeit inadvertent—that it is far too wide at present. “Other matters” does not mean anything we fancy; the definition is much stricter than that.

John Leech: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 31, in clause 31, page 16, line 2, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘and the Treasury may jointly’.
No. 32, in clause 31, page 16, line 3, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury’.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 31, page 16, line 17, at end insert—
‘(6A)An order under subsection (4) may not specify—
(a)a power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs if or in so far as it relates to a matter to which section 7 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11) (former Inland Revenue matters) applies, or
(b)a matter to which that section applies.’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 46.

Tony McNulty: These amendments follow on naturally from the earlier Government amendments. There is an interface between the assorted powers and responsibilities of the Treasury and the Home Office with, on the one hand, HM Revenue and Customs, and, on the other, immigration services and the police. Amendment No. 33 inserts a new subsection in clause 31 to make it clear that the powers specified by the Secretary of State and the Treasury, jointly, as determined on the earlier amendment, should not apply to information collected by HM Revenue and Customs under the former Inland Revenue’s powers.
When we are talking about borders, immigration and security, it is clear that the customs wing rather than the revenue wing of the new joint organisation has the germane data that we seek permission to share with other agencies. Government amendment No. 46 provides similar clarification in respect of disclosure to the security and intelligence agencies. Without wishing to provoke suspicion and cynicism, this is an extremely straightforward amendment with no tricks involved. I have no cards up my sleeve.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: This important clause deals with what is now a duty, rather than a power, on a number of people—the Home Office, the police and the Revenue—to share information. Many of us will have wondered over the years why we do not have a unified presence—a unified border force—at our ports. Indeed, it is my party’s policy to create a single border agency to replace what happens at the moment. When you or I land at Dover, Sir Nicholas—in my case, having come back from France with cigarettes; in your case, it is probably with other things—

Nicholas Winterton: Wine.

Humfrey Malins: Thank you so much, Sir Nicholas. At Dover, we find first of all the police and then customs and immigration. They are all there with their different powers. It is not only my party that argues for a unified border force; large numbers of people in the Labour party do so too.

Tony McNulty: Name them.

Humfrey Malins: I am going to. Large numbers of people have considered the matter extremely carefully. Of course, I refer to the Home Affairs Committee report “Border controls”, which was ordered to be printed on 23 January 2001. That Select Committee was dominated by the Labour party and was chaired by Mr. Robin Corbett, now Lord Corbett. It contained seven Labour Members. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) was a member at that time.
Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Humfrey Malins: I think the hon. Gentleman wishes to distance himself from the report, which is not surprising if he was not a member of the Committee.
The Committee considered carefully a great many matters connected with border controls. I shall quote just one or two important paragraphs from its report. It said:
“It has been put to the Committee by those who have most direct experience of working with the government agencies at ports—the port operators and carriers—that we should consider combining those agencies into a single frontier force.”
The Committee went on to consider the pros and cons of doing that. I recall that very well: I was on the Committee at the time.
We took evidence from a number of persons, including the Dover harbour board, which gave a direct statement as follows, citing an example of the nonsense that is created when three different agencies exchange information:
“I could give you a very specific example that happened not very long ago. An inbound family in an Escort van in Dover, legitimately [in] a white van ... They had been on an innocent day trip and were passport controlled, as is normal, by immigration and were then selected by Kent Police Ports Unit for a check for some reason, unaccountably, and were asked to off-load the van. They did so, and then were told they could reload it and go—only to find that 10 yards down the road they were stopped by Customs who asked them to unload the van again, and equally found nothing. It was not a target, as far as I am aware, it was a cold pull on both counts ... [It took] an hour, probably, against a target time of less than five minutes”.
The report went on to talk about information exchange and information sharing. It rightly pointed out—this is nearly five years ago—that information
“can be passed between the police, Customs and Immigration Service under legal provisions called statutory gateways. It is only legally possible to exchange information about specific cases. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, when fully implemented, will make it possible for bulk data to be exchanged between Customs and the Immigration Service. Customs are also seeking changes to legislation to make it possible for them to do the same with the police and other agencies.”
In taking that philosophy forward, the Minister has proposed a clause about the duty to exchange information.
The report also stated:
“Another example of lack of joined-up working are the powers of different officers on duty at ports.”
Dover has customs, immigration and police officers on duty, but all three agencies are not represented in some smaller ports. On the west coast of Great Britain, there are several ports where the only official presence is the police. Will the Minister comment on possible developments in that connection over the past four years? Are all the agencies now represented at all the ports that were not covered at the time of the report?

Gwyn Prosser: If the hon. Gentleman had joined me in a recent visit to the port of Dover, he would have seen how inter-agency working had changed dramatically since 2001. The very officers with whom the hon. Gentleman discussed these matters then are now saying that there is far more integration; they sit in the same office and share the same databases. There has been a lot of movement; the system is working.

Humfrey Malins: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Home Affairs Committee. He takes a great interest in these matters and I always respect what he has to say. He referred to the fact that there were three different agencies in the same office, which is the background to the issue. It is not surprising that the Home Affairs Committee recommended that existing border control agencies should be combined into a single frontier force. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little bit more about his thinking on that recommendation, made so long ago.
I have one or two queries about the exchange of information. The agencies will now be under a duty to share information with each other. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the proposition that there needs to be a safeguard against fishing expeditions, which I have mentioned before—for example, one agency simply saying to another, pursuant to the duty under the clause, “Have you got anything we might be interested in? Let’s see what you’ve been doing.” I assume that a record will be made of all requests and that it will be a public document.
I wonder, although it is highly unlikely, whether the Minister has thought about whether someone who is the equivalent of the independent monitor in asylum cases might oversee the workings of the exchange of information scheme to see that all is correct.
All members of the Committee believe that it is important that agencies share information, which can be of the greatest importance to national security. Of course, the Minister will be the first to say that some information is not relevant. When the Revenue is involved there is a possibility of information that should not be passed on being passed to another body by a person who, rather zealously, takes their duties too seriously.
The breadth of the clause is again evidenced by the continued reference to the ability and duty to exchange information for “police purposes”. I again quote the section of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that troubles me greatly because the final definition of “police purposes” after the obvious ones is
“such other purposes as may be specified”.
The vagueness of that definition leads me to wonder whether it would be possible for too much information to be switching around between the various bodies under the clause. It would have been so much better if the Government had listened to the Home Affairs Committee and to my party, as there would be only one body and the clause and the obligation to share information would be utterly redundant.

Tony McNulty: I disagreed with what the Home Affairs Committee said about a single agency four years ago and I disagree with the Conservative party’s position now. However, the data sharing facilities and duties must be right and must work. I fully accept that, but a joint agency would lose too much.
Let us go back to Dover. Where would the authority of a single border force start and end? What would be the role of special branch, who have a special role—as their name implies—above and beyond simply the county force? Sometimes it is Kent’s own special branch; sometimes it works with other counties, and there will always be scope and the need for joint operations. We are trying to ensure that each agency brings in and uses its specific area of expertise as much as it can. I cannot think of how a single border agency could be drawn up that would capture in fullness the expertise of the immigration service on immigration, the Customs and Revenue people on customs, the county police and the local Dover police and their local knowledge germane to the port, and other special  branch forces and the serious crime squad. It must be the case that if the intra and inter-workings of each of those agencies were brought together in an appropriate fashion, which the clause seeks to do, the sum of all the expertise brought by each of those agencies would be far greater than an individual border force. I remain to be persuaded, but that is clearly my view at present.
I will not go down the road of suggesting what you, Sir Nicholas, bring back or do not bring back from France or other forays on the continent. That is absolutely none of my business. What the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) does in his own time, by going over to deprive the Revenue by buying his cigarettes in France, is entirely a matter for him, not me. I shall not go down those avenues at all, but if he is going again—

Humfrey Malins: I’ll bring you some back.

Tony McNulty: Yes; why not?
It must be the case that the expertise of all agencies is far greater than that of a single border agency. I freely accept the substantive point that if that is the case, all the assorted data sharing facilities should be put on a statutory footing, rather than the less than statutory, informal position that we have now. We would need to be clear about who is in the lead in any specific operation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that would avoid a series of assorted targeted searches as someone proceeds through a port. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover is right that there must be scope for joint targeting or operations, and that if someone is coming through and there is a reason for stopping them, that should happen, but only once, whether it is by special branch, Customs or whoever else is instigating the target.
In Dover and some other southern coastal ports, in line with what we were suggesting with earlier amendments, we have moved the border—not physically, as we are not doing offshore searches of anybody. However, just the other week, I was over in Calais looking at the juxtaposed controls—where they get these phrases from, I do not know—which is English, or bad English, for our Customs people doing what they do best over in Calais, long before freight or passengers reach the UK, working exceptionally well with all the assorted security and police officials from the French state, our consular people and the equivalent département officials from the Pas de Calais and the town of Calais. It is working very well, and has been in place since the demise of Sangatte. If the hon. Member for Woking has not already been, I would encourage him to go, with some of his colleagues, and see in person the lorry searching, the passenger side and the real operation, which means that less is desired and more can be targeted on ports such as Dover once passenger or freight traffic lands in this country. I would facilitate such a visit.
I return to the original point: it is my duty to say, if we do not have a single border force, how can we knit together each of the agencies more appropriately for  data sharing and all the other facilities? That is what we seek to achieve with clause 31. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Information sharing: security purposes

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 32, page 16, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—
‘(1)A person specified in subsection (2) may disclose information obtained or held in the course of his functions to a person specified in subsection (2A) if he thinks that the information is likely to be of use for a purpose specified in—’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 36 to 41, 43, 45, 48 and 49.
Amendment No. 100, in clause 33, page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2)Before issuing a code the Secretary of State shall—
(a)consult the Information Commissioner
(b)after that consultation, publish a draft code
(c)consider any representations made about the published draft, and lay a draft code before Parliament.’.
Amendment No. 101, in clause 33, page 18, leave out line 7 and insert—
‘(4)The code shall come into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State; and an order—’.

Andy Burnham: Had the general election not intervened, the drafting of the Bill, given a little more time, could have been tidier. The purpose of our amendments in this group is to clarify and tidy the Bill’s structure. They will make the Bill’s relationship with other legislation that governs the security services more logical and sensible.
The original drafting of clause 32 allows for travel or freight information for security and intelligence purposes to be shared. The amendments give the border agencies a discretionary power to disclose travel and freight data to the security and intelligence agencies for specified purposes: national security, economic well-being and support in combating serious crime. The original provisions allowed the reciprocal sharing of data, but we can inform the Committee that those provisions are not necessary, because existing powers in the Security Service Act 1989 or the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which enable the security and intelligence agencies to disclose data to the border agencies for certain purposes, are sufficient. Therefore the two-way process does not need to be included in the clause, because the existing legislation—namely, those two Acts—allows for the transfer of data back the other way.
As a consequence of the amendments, the code of practice on data sharing no longer applies to the clause. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 remove references to clause 32 in clause 33, which relates to the code of practice.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 allow for information to be disclosed if it is likely to be of use for any of the purposes specified in section 1 of the 1989 Act or sections 1 and 3 of the 1994 Act. Those are the same purposes that I mentioned a moment ago. I hope you will agree, Sir Nicholas, that those are tidying amendments.
I shall now speak to the amendments that have been grouped with the Government amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) will want to make his own comments. It seems appropriate at this stage to put some of our thinking on the record. Amendment No. 100 would create a three-tier process for the code of practice for the one-way transfer of information.
The hon. Gentleman envisaged three tiers in that process: first, that there would be consultation with the Information Commissioner; secondly, that following consultation a draft code would be published; and thirdly, that the Government should consider any representations made about the published draft and lay a code before Parliament.
On each of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, we can give him some comfort that steps have already been taken or will be taken, according to the Bill as drafted. We have already worked closely with the Information Commissioner on the production of the framework code of practice, which the hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at. On 13 October, we published an outline framework for a code of practice on data sharing, in accordance with clause 31 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, between the immigration service, the police service and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under e-borders. I recommend that document—with its simple and snappy title—to the hon. Gentleman as a riveting read. It sets out the principles by which we are taking this process forward. I assure him that we have been working closely with the commissioner on its production.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the commissioner has responsibility for ensuring that the principles of the Data Protection Act are upheld, and we are mindful of those principles. The Home Office will continue to work with the commissioner’s office in the production of the subsequent documentation related to the clause.
The hon. Gentleman’s second point was that a draft code should be laid before it is finalised. I refer him to clause 33(2)(a), which states that a code
“shall not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament.”
I think that that takes care of the hon. Gentleman’s point. People would, of course, be able to make representations on the draft.
With those assurances, we urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments, although I will expect him to make further points in the course of the debate. The Government amendments to the clause are simply tidying and clarifying amendments to ensure that the Bill, if it is to become an Act, will work properly and fit neatly into the existing legislation that governs the activities and work of our security and intelligence services.

John Leech: In the light of what the Minister has said—he has stolen my thunder slightly—at this stage I do not seek to press my amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: As the Minister correctly anticipates, when I heard the words “tidying and clarifying”, that led me to raise a couple of points that I would like the Minister to tidy up and clarify. They are not complicated matters.
I believe that I am right in thinking that amendments Nos. 43 and 45 are consequential on amendments Nos. 40 and 41. However, if the people mentioned in those amendments are under no duty to share information, surely there can be no order specifying the information that they must share. It is therefore unclear to me why amendment No. 43 does not also delete subsection (3)(c), which states,
“which relates to such other matters in respect of travel or freight as the Secretary of State may specify by order.”
That subsection appears to be left hanging with the deletion of subsection (3)(b).
It is also worth asking what the effect of deleting subsection (4)(b) will be. Will the Minister respond to those two points?
Likewise, on Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49, and despite what the Minister said, I again presume that their purpose is to take information sharing for security purposes under clause 32 out of the code of practice. I am still unclear why that has been done. As nothing in the clause imposes a requirement to report on how the code of practice is used or could otherwise require the security services to disclose information, why are the amendments necessary?
Moving on, I have two small queries. First, the drafting in this subsection limits it to information provided by the Secretary of State
“in so far as he has functions under the Immigration Acts”,
a chief officer of police, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Would there be any other Government agencies to which it could apply or be extended, such as information held by housing departments, the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Skills? Why is it limited to those three and not a broader category of operations?
In clause 28 the Government amendment added all vehicles to these categories and yet that does not seem to have happened in this area. I wondered whether for the sake of tidiness or keeping everything in order vehicles should be considered as a potential addition to this group under subsection (3)(a).
Lastly, I happened to glance at the long title of the Bill. It may not be a matter for now but as freight happens to be mentioned specifically under the clause, I wondered whether orders relating to freight are within the long title of the Bill as it stands. [Interruption.] The Minister is saying from a sedentary position that they are, but it is always worth checking at this stage and getting the answer from the ministerial team.

Andy Burnham: Perhaps I may deal with the hon. Lady’s last point first. It came up this morning. It is important to reiterate that the movement of freight is relevant to our considerations. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear, there can be circumstances where freight movements involve people, but the movement of freight can also provide information about immigration issues or policing matters. That is why it is included. As he said, parliamentary counsel has satisfied us that it is within the scope of the Bill. I am happy to give her that assurance.
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s probing on the tidiness or otherwise of the clause as it is left. First, she asked why subsection (3)(c) is not deleted, given that (3)(b) is to be removed and the persons referred to in subsection (2)(d) to (f) have been deleted. It is not deleted and the clause is not untidy as a result because, as with clause 31, it is necessary to say what information can be passed from the border agencies to the security and intelligence services, where that does not fit in clause 32(3)(a). It is necessary to give further clarification on that point.
The hon. Lady also asked about the effect of leaving out subsection (4)(b). The subsection is unnecessary as this is no longer a two-way gateway. The Bill, as drafted, was about creating a two-way operation whereby information could pass in both directions. As amended, the Bill is a one-way street and the process in the other direction is now removed. The security and intelligence services have sufficient legislation to cover their operations—that is taken care of—so the provision is not needed.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the clause could be extended to other agencies, such as housing. We are considering whether it may usefully be extended to others in future but it is primarily concerned with the capture of data as it affects the cross-border movement of people. That is why it is so constructed. If there were a case to be made in the future, we would give thought to it, but at this stage it is right to limit the scope of the Bill and the clause as proposed.
I think I have covered most of the points raised by the hon. Lady. She asked about vehicles; the only relevant vehicles are those on ferries, which would be covered under passengers and freight, and vehicles coming through the channel tunnel. The Bill, especially the sections that relate to aircraft and vessels, does not mention trains. Trains passing through the channel tunnel are governed by separate legislation, and we shall lay out in an order flowing from that legislation similar provisions to those in the Bill in respect of other transport movements.

Cheryl Gillan: I raised the matter only because of the Minister’s own amendment No. 108 to clause 28, which applies to ships and aircraft, to
“leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’.”
For clarification, keeping in line with clause 28, I thought if the proposal did include vehicles it might be helpful. I was just tidying up.

Andy Burnham: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I thought that it would be useful to explain more broadly why the proposal is so drafted. The order relating to channel tunnel traffic will come in due course. “Vehicles” are the classes of vehicles that I mentioned; I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clarify what is meant by that. Vehicles coming through the channel tunnel will be dealt with in secondary legislation. For the purposes of the Bill, vehicles on ferries are covered under passengers and freight.
I hope with that clarification that I have answered the hon. Lady’s legitimate questions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:No. 36, in clause 32, page 16, line 44, leave out ‘a function specified in’.
No. 37, in clause 32, page 16, line 45, leave out ‘a function specified in’.
No. 38, in clause 32, page 17, leave out line 1 and insert—
‘(2)The persons who may disclose information in accordance with subsection (1) are—’.
No. 39, in clause 32, page 17, line 4, at end insert ‘and’.
No. 40, in clause 32, page 17, line 6, leave out paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).
No. 41, in clause 32, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A)The persons to whom information may be disclosed in accordance with subsection (1) are—
(a)the Director-General of the Security Service,
(b)the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, and
(c)the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters.’.
No. 42, in clause 32, page 17, line 11, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’.
No. 43, in clause 32, page 17, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 44, in clause 32, page 17, line 22, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘and the Treasury may jointly’.
No. 45, in clause 32, page 17, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
No. 46, in clause 32, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
‘(5A)An order under subsection (3) may not specify—
(a)a power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs if or in so far as it relates to a matter to which section 7 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11) (former Inland Revenue matters) applies, or
(b)a matter to which that section applies.’.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 16, line 39, transfer Clause 32 to after Clause 33.
I shall be very brief. The amendment is a tidying amendment in the truest sense of the word. It simply moves clause 32 so that it follows clause 33, as clause 33 will be applicable only to clause 31 as a consequence of Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49. If that is clear, I ask the Committee to accept amendment No. 34.

Cheryl Gillan: I simply congratulate the Minister on a good piece of tidying up of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Committee on dealing with the matter with considerable expedition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 - Information sharing: code of practice

Amendments made:No. 47, in clause 33, page 17, line 42, leave out ‘shall’ and insert
‘and the Treasury shall jointly’.
No. 48, in clause 33, page 17, line 43, leave out ‘or 32(1)’.
No. 49, in clause 33, page 17, line 46, leave out ‘or 32(4)’.
No. 50, in clause 33, page 18, line 4, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’.
No. 51, in clause 33, page 18, line 5, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury’.
No. 52, in clause 33, page 18, line 5, after ‘shall’, insert ‘jointly’.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Disclosure to law enforcement agencies

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 34, page 18, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 34 gives chiefs of police the power to disclose information to
“any other foreign law enforcement agency.”
The amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is a probing amendment designed to find out what safeguards will be in place to ensure that information is not shared in a way that breaches UK obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. I seek assurances from the Minister as to how he can guarantee that information sharing will not put anyone under further fear of persecution. A number of people who are just passing through this country could be subject to this provision. In fact, people who are not currently subject to persecution may find themselves subject to persecution. The chance of their being persecuted by a foreign Government will massively increase as a result  of information being passed on, and they could end up becoming refugees. I seek reassurance from the Minister as to how that can be avoided.

Tony McNulty: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has introduced his amendment, which he describes as probing, in the way that he has. On paper at least, I was going to refer to it as an “untidying” amendment rather than a tidying amendment, given that, by removing the definition of a foreign law enforcement agency, it would do precisely what he seeks not to do. If we take the amendment at face value, police, without being defined, could pass on information to anybody they so choose. I am glad he does not seek to pursue the amendment.
I am a bit worried, too, by the notion that the hon. Gentleman thinks that people who are “just passing through”, to use his terms, should be allowed to “just pass through” regardless of their position in other jurisdictions or of crimes that they may or may not have committed. I am sure that he did not mean it like that, but that is the way in which he phrased his introductory remarks.
We could almost put a tape recorder here in place of Ministers to respond to any number of the Liberal Democrat amendments. I repeat that anything in the Bill, not least in clause 34 will be implemented—we can do a chorus—entirely in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the 1951 convention, not to mention the 1951 European convention on human rights. That is at the root of the Bill.
I do not blame the hon. Gentleman—he is only here for a temporary four-year term—but I am sure that he will learn that he cannot look at any piece of legislation in isolation. It sits within the terms of all other existing legislation, whether that be human rights legislation, conventions to which we are signatories, an assorted range of other treaties, the Data Protection Act or whatever else. This is not a little game in which one looks at the substance of a Bill on its own without understanding its legislative context.

Henry Bellingham: I plan to be here for a good deal more than the next four years.
The Minister will be aware that the police in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are used to co-operating at great length and in great detail with different constabularies and with other law enforcement agencies on the mainland. Those islands have a special relationship with the UK. Surely it is not necessary, given that long-standing relationship and the close links among those police forces, to refer to those islands’ police forces in the Bill. Will he elaborate on that?

Tony McNulty: It is entirely necessary. Those police forces are established not only under different jurisdictions but under a different statutory base. Specifically in the context of clauses 27 and 28, it is germane, appropriate and necessary to mention them  deliberately in the Bill. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman’s point about our relationship and co-operation with those police forces.
I hope, not via a chorus or a tape recorder, that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington will take the assurances given about the 1951 conventions—European and United Nations—in the manner given and will withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: This time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I have one or two brief questions. I seek the Minister’s indulgence because, a moment ago, my mind wandered on to the next clause. I missed an earlier exchange, so if my question has already been asked, I hope that he will forgive me. Most of my best family holidays have been on the island of Alderney. I wonder whether, since Guernsey and Jersey have been mentioned, Alderney, Sark and Herm should be mentioned separately.
Although the chief officer of police may disclose information to other foreign law enforcement agencies, I should be interested to hear whether many foreign law enforcement agencies have legislation in place to permit them to exchange information with us, and whether they do so. Can the Minister explain why it was decided not to specify by order the relevant foreign law enforcement agencies, whether by name of agency or by country? Can he also say a little more about the reference in the clause not to police forces but to those with
“functions similar to ... functions of a police force.”
I take it, for example, that in America, we would be talking about the CIA, the FBI, the federal police and the state police. Are those all included? What about other countries?
In relation to the issue of police purposes, have any purposes been specified under section 21 of the 1999 Act? Can the Minister confirm that the sharing of information under the clause will also be limited to sharing for police purposes as defined by that section? Could that limitation as to purpose be specified in the Bill on Report?
Those are my questions on the clause which, otherwise, I think is sensible.

Tony McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we think that there is already sufficient explanation and definition of the information and the sharing thereof in the Bill without including it in this clause.
I am not told, but I suspect, that the formal titles “States of Jersey” and the “Island of Guernsey”, as used in the clause, cover Alderney, Sark and Herm. I am assured by a Government Whip that there is one policeman on Herm, so we may write to him to see whether he can share information with us, and under what terms he can do so. On a more serious note, I think that those areas are covered and captured by the  reference to the “States of Jersey” and the “Island of Guernsey”—[Interruption.] I do not know the policeman’s name, but I am sure that we can find out if we need to know it. I shall write to hon. Members to confirm the general point.
Two other points were made about law enforcement agencies: first, whether we share with everybody or whether we can share specifically with one agency on behalf of the others; and secondly, the degree of reciprocity. I think that I am right in saying that thus far, other states are working towards such a joint sharing arrangement and, as and when we deal with other states, there is a mutuality that would almost demand reciprocity. However, I am not entirely sure—I cannot give chapter and verse—whether other states have reached the level of legislation that we have. However, there has been significant progress at the European Union level in working towards data sharing and to a common standard in terms of biometrics and other dimensions.
I hope that my answers to those valid questions—except for the question about the name of the policeman on Herm—have satisfied hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Searches: contracting out

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 35, page 19, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 121, in clause 35, page 19, line 12, leave out from ‘(1)’ to end of line 15.
No. 122, in clause 36, page 20, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
No. 125, in clause 36, page 20, line 27, leave out subsection (4).

John Leech: The clause is serious in that it gives new powers to workers who are contracted out to other security forces. I have two questions for the Minister. First, do the Government intend to create an unregulated security force, as elements of the clause suggest? Secondly, why are we not limiting the powers to existing customs officers and police officers?
There are serious questions to be answered about the training of such unregulated security officers who might be given the job of security. What level of training will be given to people to whom the service has been contracted out? Will they, for instance, be given training in racial and cultural sensitivities when conducting searches? Under section 155 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, detainee custody officers are authorised individually. Clause 35 suggests that a whole class of people, rather than the individual, will now be authorised.
Will the Minister also clarify whether the training of people to whom the service is contracted out will include understanding the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice and the limitations on powers of search?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the powers of search, which are critical. I also serve on the Committee considering the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which contains very similar powers of search in relation to school children. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill refers to a
“coat, a jacket or a glove”,
which can be taken off, whereas the Violent Crime Reduction Bill refers to a
“coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat”.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that to be an omission from this Bill?

John Leech: I am not quite sure how important the omission is, but perhaps the Minister will comment on that, too.
There is also the question of the definition of a coat. A lady might wear a jacket but not have anything on underneath, whereas I might wear a coat on top of my jacket.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not know what ladies the hon. Gentleman has been mixing with, but in my experience most ladies do wear something under their jackets.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. Ribaldry is not encouraged.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand that, Sir Nicholas. I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (7)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii), which state that part of the search is to prevent the individual from carrying something that might cause himself or another physical harm, or that might assist him to escape. That is why a hat is so important.
I served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill back in 1993, and the one amendment that Conservative Ministers allowed us Back Benchers to make was to add the word “hat” in relation to searches. More importantly, however, restricting the list in subsection (8)(a) means that it might not be possible to discover the things that an individual carries that could cause them physical harm or assist them out of detention. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might want to take that into consideration, because it appears to be a lacuna.

John Leech: Clearly, from the information that the hon. Lady has given, I am sure that the Minister will want to take on board the issues raised about a hat.
My last comment relates to the ability to detain others for up to three hours. It strikes me that three hours is an awfully long time for an unregulated person, who does not have the experience of a police officer or a customs official, to be able to detain somebody in that capacity.

Gwyn Prosser: I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have some general concerns about the hiving out of duties carried out by public servants to  private agencies, although I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, will not allow me to go too far along that track.
However, the problem is not just the generality of hiving out public duties, but the particular nature of the duties. Anyone who has witnessed the searching in, for example, my home port of Dover, and who has seen some of the tragic scenes of the back of a lorry opening and families of asylum seekers with young children coming down the ladder, will know that they are traumatic incidents, which must be dealt with sensitively. The idea is to hire private agency staff, although the Bill says that they must be properly trained and provide a proper service. What does the description “fit and proper” for the purpose and “suitably trained” mean? It describes a fully trained immigration officer or a fully trained customs officer. It is not by accident that they have to go through rigorous tests.
We do not have to look into a crystal ball to see what might happen, because we already have the situation in Calais, where private agency workers, who happen to be French nationals working for a French agency on very low pay that is close to the minimum wage, are required to help at berthside inspections, supporting the immigration officers. They have only a limited power, not the extended powers in the Bill and cannot carry out searches of people. The Bill mentioned inspecting the inside of a person’s mouth. That involves detaining someone, possibly against their will, and could give rise to all sorts of concerns. We only have to think about the debate that took place on whether community support officers should be given powers to detain and arrest to know that. We have gone through the process of providing fully trained customs officers and immigration officers, and that should be the end of that.
Last week I had a meeting with immigration officers who were members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. There are hundreds of such people in Dover, and I am a member of the PCS parliamentary group. They explained that one of the dangers of hiring agency staff is not just the sensitivity of health and safety matters, which we have discussed, but the greater propensity—I am not being xenophobic—for a foreign national, who is hired on a short-term contract, or even for the day, and given the new powers, to be open to corruption and bribery. Those were the words of the immigration officers.
Even if we do not go as far as that, agency staff certainly will not have the culture that is built into our customs officers and immigration officers—officers of the Crown—who look on their job as a point of duty. They are not just there to earn a crust of bread. That is very important, of course, but they are paid a professional wage to do a professional job and this aspect of the Bill dilutes that and could have serious ramifications.
I shall not do anything dramatic today, but I hope that the Minister will take those points on board in the serious way in which they have been delivered. If he  cannot give me real assurances that my concerns will not become reality, I and other colleagues will have to consider which way to approach the measure on Report.

Lee Scott: I want to ask the Minister how many extra fully trained officers will be put in place to enforce the searches. Will they be across all ports or just selected ports of entry to the country?

Cheryl Gillan: I want to expand slightly on my intervention on the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, because I am concerned about some of the provisions, and particularly those left standing in subsection (7).
There is a problem in our establishments with the number of self-harming incidents and suicides. I want to establish what protections will be put in place. I want to save the rest of my arguments for the clause stand part debate, but as I mentioned that point in an intervention and you ruled it in order, Sir Nicholas, I just wanted to reinforce the fact that I seek a statement on the issue from the Minister, so that I may, with your permission and that of the rest of the Committee, return to the issue on clause stand part.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady read the Chairman’s mind.

Andy Burnham: The amendments have prompted a useful debate and I hope to respond to most, if not all, of the points raised. There is common ground between us, in that we accept that the searching of inbound vehicles and vessels is a crucial component of our border controls. The Committee is probably united on that issue. The problem is that under current legislation the power is restricted to immigration officers; the provision is restrictive. That places enormous strain on immigration service resources in an area that we feel could equally be served by using suitably qualified persons. There is no reason why, with adequate training and scrutiny, a private contractor could not perform successfully the operation that we are discussing and allow hard-pressed immigration staff to devote their skills and expertise to areas where they can be more useful.

John Leech: Perhaps the Minister could give us an indication of how much money the Government expect to save as a result of contracting the work out, rather than taking on extra members of staff in the existing service.

Andy Burnham: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I stress that this is not a question of saving money. We are in the process of expanding quite significantly the immigration service front line at ports—not only at seaports, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover assiduously represents, but across the piece. This measure is purely about flexibility. It is not about someone doing the job more cheaply so that we can save money. The point is that we want trained, qualified, skilled immigration service staff to do the jobs in which they can add most value and use their skills most effectively.

John Leech: Surely the Minister would agree that the issue is not money. The best way to guarantee that we have people doing the best job possible is to have members of the immigration service or customs officers doing the job. If money is not the issue, why not take on extra members of staff who will be guaranteed to have gone through the rigorous training that the existing members of staff have been through?

Andy Burnham: There are several reasons why we would want to have the flexibility to enable full-time, trained immigration service staff to be devoted to other responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the juxtaposed controls that we operate in France. It might not always be practical or the best use of resources to devote our available personnel to front-end responsibilities. It is right to take the view that if staff can be more effectively deployed elsewhere they should be, and this clause enables us to do that.
In introducing amendment No. 120, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made a point of asking the Government why it was our intention to create an unregulated security force. I strongly object to that, and entirely refute the suggestion. If he looks at the Bill, particularly clause 36, he will see that it lays out a pretty stringent regime whereby the Secretary of State can revoke the powers. There are also monitoring requirements to be put in place by the clause. Therefore we would reject the suggestion. The effect of the amendment would be to require the functions to be carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff or by police constables. That would not be a sensible use of resources at the border. Those functions could more legitimately be carried out by others.
There was some debate on cultural issues, and whether they would be covered in training. I can give an assurance that the Home Office will ensure that cultural issues are fully addressed as part of the training. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is not applicable to this function, as subjects are not regarded as criminal—in the way that anybody arriving at an immigration port of entry and then subject to a search is not regarded as a criminal—and are not under arrest. Individuals being detained are detained under administrative procedures.
We then got on to the entertaining topic of personal dress, and what would happen if an immigration officer apprehended a young woman who was wearing a coat but nothing underneath. My first reaction was that he would not be able to believe his luck. Seriously, however, I take the point that hats are potentially an issue that should be considered, although at this stage we are not talking about a search that has to be comprehensive in every respect. Immigration officers have powers to conduct further searches if necessary. The purpose of searches is described here, and it is related to the other points about training. They are brief and non-intrusive searches to establish basic facts about what the person is carrying and if there is anything that needs to be drawn to the attention of an immigration officer. He asked whether detention up to  three hours was appropriate. Contractors will be regulated by close scrutiny from the immigration service itself, which will demand high standards. In addition a monitor will be appointed, as we will discuss under clause 36, to review the operation of the contractor and to investigate any failings. Three hours is the maximum and the clause refers to
“a period which is as short as is reasonably necessary”.
People would not need to be detained for that long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised some important points. I know how assiduously he represents his constituents who work at the port of Dover. I pay tribute to the job his constituents do in operating the country’s busiest and most famous seaport. In no way does the clause undermine or detract from their important role. He is right to say that they have a sense of duty about their work. We would envisage that the clause will simply enable them to use their considerable skill, but in an area where it can be most effective.

Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend has been most generous to me and the customs and immigration officers in Dover. But those same customs and immigration officers whose professionalism, efficiency and judgment have been lauded are the very people who were saying that this is a step too far and this is not the most effective way to guard our borders. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, the answer is to increase the number of customs and immigration officers rather than bring in this cheap, second-tier option.

Andy Burnham: We are doing just that. We are increasing the force on the ground at ports throughout the country. I could provide my hon. Friend with the exact figures. A recruitment campaign is under way to increase the size of the trained immigration service work force at ports throughout the country. I take his point that these are the people who are saying that the clause is a concern. More generally, the immigration service staff, of whom he probably has more in his constituency than any other hon. Member, are some of the most undervalued of all public servants. Their work is at times not glamorous, and it is certainly difficult and challenging to deal with complex personal situations. Much of their work goes unrewarded and unrecognised. Nevertheless, they should have nothing to fear from this proposal.
 My hon. Friend mentioned that people could be brought in on the day and that they could be substandard. The Bill, as drafted, makes it clear that they would have to be suitably trained and that steps would be taken to ensure that any operator used would offer the highest possible standards. The development will not lead to redundancies. As I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, it is not a question of giving this flexibility in order to withdraw or reduce the head count of trained immigration service staff. That is not the purpose of the clause. We are increasing immigration control and if an operation meant any staff being displaced from the front-line work of directly searching vehicles coming in, those  staff would be redeployed to other parts of immigration control along the Kent coast. This is not a question of redundancies.

John Leech: The Minister said that I suggested the clause would put immigration officers out of a job; I did not mean that, and I understand the point about taking on extra members of staff. The point that I wanted to make was that, if we are to take on extra staff to provide the service in question, we should take the very best and best-trained people. The best way to do that is to ensure that they are people working in the existing services, whether those are the police, the immigration service or customs officers.

Andy Burnham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of standards being compromised. However, he needs to consider in its entirety the process that is undertaken at ports of entry. Some functions require less skill and experience than others. The whole premise of the clause is flexibility. It is about deploying the skills to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the points of the immigration process where they will be most useful. The clause enables people to be redeployed to where they are most useful.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would require that the search equipment was used by police officers, customs officials or immigration service staff. It can be quite high tech, but it might not be the best use of their time and abilities. The question whether giving them that work is sensible must be considered in the round. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the operation of the juxtaposed controls and whether it is sensible that the agencies carrying out the work on the other side of the channel should always be those that his amendment stipulates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover will know better than anyone that the immigration service currently employs private contractors in other contexts and that those serve helpful supporting functions that enable immigration service staff to carry out their primary role. The immigration service must make the best use of the skills available among its staff. Searching lorries is one relevant area, but there are others in which staff can perhaps use their skills more effectively. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points and I hope that I have given him some of the assurances that he wanted.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) asked how many extra officers would be needed and whether they would be in all ports or only in some. The exercise of the functions, if it happens at all, will be dictated by the frequency of arrivals at the port concerned. Among the Conservative party’s misinterpretations—particularly during the election campaign—was the creation of an assumption that a full-time border staff would be put in post at every port of entry in the country. If that is still the party’s policy, it would have to find vast resources to pay for it. The immigration service operates by targeting resources according to the risk associated with the routes operating through any port.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is playing fast and loose. The manifesto that we stood on in the last election said that we would secure our borders. I helpfully gave my copy of the impact assessment to Hansard because I referred to it this morning, so I do not have the text before me, but the Minister is being disingenuous because it discussed the redeployment of staff that are otiose to requirements to other parts of the Department. That is not a cutting down of the civil service and officials. The Minister should make it clear that he is absorbing people and increasing manpower.

Andy Burnham: We certainly are. The facts speak for themselves. The size of the immigration service work force is increasing, and we are taking steps to recruit further immigration officials. I was speaking about the commitment to 24-hour security at all ports—I think that that was the commitment given in the Opposition manifesto—and I would be very interested to see the costings for that proposal. [Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Order. We are debating the Bill, not the election.

Andy Burnham: The contractors will be used to fill gaps at small ports and other places where intelligence has highlighted a problem. That is our intention; we do not propose covering all ports.

Cheryl Gillan: Is the Minister saying that there will be distinctive port forces in certain small ports?

Andy Burnham: I give the example of Liverpool airport, which has seen enormous growth in its passenger traffic in the past few years. The immigration service complement at that airport has increased significantly. I understand that it now has 10 full-time immigration officers, who are supplemented by one or two chief immigration officers. Only a few years ago, the operation did not justify such a number. The service has to judge the volume of traffic coming via a particular port of entry, and the risk that that traffic poses to immigration and border control and more broadly to security issues.

Cheryl Gillan: Why has this approach been used instead of pursuing a co-operative approach with local police forces, which already have excellent intelligence and also have the power to search and detain?

Andy Burnham: It is not being done in the teeth of opposition. Every port of entry now has a multi-agency security team that monitors activities across the port. That team includes the various border agencies, and it is our full intention that there should be even closer working between them.
I was saying that immigration service staff will be supported by contracted organisations if necessary and if the volume and the risk justify that deployment and investment. The difference between our position and that of the Opposition is the commitment to blanket 24-hour coverage of paid staff at all ports of entry. It was that differentiation that I sought to tease out.
The hon. Lady also asked for clarification on the welfare of people in detention, particularly those liable to inflict self-harm. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, the detention and search powers are limited. The Bill will allow the searchers physically to search those detected at the earliest opportunity and to remove objects that they might use to harm themselves, but we are not talking about extensive powers of search and detention. The concerns are legitimate, but they are not valid in this case.
The amendments have allowed us a useful debate. For the avoidance of doubt, it is about our ability to deploy the immigration service work force in a flexible manner, and to target them where they are most needed and where they can best uphold the integrity of our borders. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who is a renowned expert on those matters within the House. I want, via him, to reassure his constituents that the provisions in no way weaken their role. Indeed, it will probably enhance it, in that the people that we are discussing will be able to spend their time doing more meaningful things.
I believe that the amendment would be restrictive, because it would ensure that trained people were performing functions for which they were over-qualified. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington would want that, so I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: I listened carefully to the extensive comments made by the Minister, but I do not feel that I have had the reassurance that I sought. I do not intend to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the next amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, may I say that although I am a servant of the Committee, I have one real power, which is to decide when we break for dinner? I have been advised by the usual channels that they hope to get to clause 46 tonight. If that is the case, the debate must speed up considerably. I intend to suspend and adjourn the Committee at 7 pm for one and a half hours, so hon. Members would then return at half-past eight. Having had no lunch myself because of commitments in the House, I feel that I need a break at that time.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in clause 35, page 19, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
I will be very brief. I have touched on the issue of detention and powers to detain by the people to whom the services are contracted out. Previously, contractors only had powers to detain people who had already been arrested or detained by the police or customs officials. Clause 35(7)(c) seeks to give power to detain, but there is no provision for a disciplinary system to ensure the proper use of that power or to ensure public accountability. The amendment, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, would deny private contractors the power to detain.

Andy Burnham: I, too, will be brief. This ground was covered in our exchanges a moment ago. The amendment seeks to remove the power of detention by an unauthorised person. Vehicle searches are currently undertaken by immigration officers who have the power to detain any person seeking to enter the country in a clandestine fashion. The purpose of the legislation is to provide additional resources at optimal cost to allow for the redeployment of those immigration personnel. There is nothing sinister about it; it is simply about using resources where they are most effective. It is therefore essential that those undertaking the task be empowered to detain any persons they discover until such time as they are able to hand them over to the appropriate authority.

John Leech: The Minister mentions the word cost. Previously, he suggested that it was not an issue, but now he says that it is a factor.

Andy Burnham: That is a debating point. We want to use the resources that are allocated to the immigration service to the best effect. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party will ever get near the levers of government, but if they did they, too, would be under a duty to the taxpayers of this country to use resources efficiently and effectively. This is about using our resources well. If authorised search officers did not have the power, they would be unable to do their jobs properly, and that would enable people who were discovered to ignore any instruction or to fail to comply with any direction given by the search officer. The staff need to have their position backed up by a modest amount of legislative force, without which their role would be extremely difficult. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. The amendment would weaken the Bill unacceptably, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Leech: Although I do not accept the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: First, I should like to ask the Minister whether the powers would be exercisable only in a port or also, for example, in a lay-by where a lorry had arrived several hours before, and was waiting. Secondly, I want the Minister, again, to reflect on the  three hours and the search capabilities, and extending the search capabilities. We have firm evidence that the first few hours in detention of any sort are particularly critical to vulnerable and alarmed people. We have only to look at our Prison Service to see the prime attention that is given to prisoners serving their first night in custody. I urge the Minister to consider the issue and come back to it on Report, or at least to review it to ensure that he has satisfied himself that the powers are extensive enough.
I also query why these people—as authorised persons with powers to use reasonable force to search and to detain—should not be appointed individually, as is done in the case of detaining custody officers. At the moment, there is a blanket provision for anybody from Group 4 or Securicor, or whoever it is, to have the powers. Lastly, I use as a support the evidence that the National Audit Office has produced about our privatised prison establishments. It cannot be ignored. The NAO has raised concerns about the lack of experienced staff in private prisons, and therefore I want to know what assurances we will have that staff who have little or no prior experience will not be used in those situations. What sort of proviso will the Government put on those operations?
The National Audit Office has highlighted the fact that there is an extremely high turnover of staff. If the Minister does not want to give me a direct answer to those questions today, perhaps he will write to me and show that he has reflected on them, as they are of extreme concern and importance to members on both sides of the Committee.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady raises some legitimate concerns on which I will reflect further; I will also reflect on the points raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I am satisfied that what is proposed is a legitimate power but I will consider it further.
The hon. Lady asked where the power would be used; we intend that it would be only within the confines of a port. It is envisaged that the powers would be useful in the operation of the juxtaposed controls—the controls over the channel where it may not be sensible or practical to deploy fully-fledged immigration service staff or other border controls at all times of the day. If hon. Members think that through, they will realise that it is sensible to have that flexibility.
On issues such as three hours, search capabilities and staff experience, we should put more information before the Committee in terms of how we envisage that working and what further information and assurances we can give. I will seek to do so after I have reflected on the issues raised by the hon. Lady, which are fair points. I urge the Committee to accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Section 35: supplemental

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 36, page 20, line 3, leave out ‘a crown servant’ and insert ‘an independent person’.
The reason for tabling this probing amendment is twofold: first, it is to get some idea from the Minister how private contractors who detain and escort people to and from where they have been staying are monitored and whether it has been successful and, secondly, what steps are being put in place to ensure the supervision of the new contracted staff.

Tony McNulty: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, contracting out immigration support services is not new. There are already substantive processes in place to monitor and oversee, specifically at ground level through the contractual arrangements in place to secure the contract. At a broader level they are monitored by a Government body. There is no reason to depart from established practices, which are well respected and which we seek to emulate. The notion that an independent person would be better and, in some magical fashion, better disposed and efficient at such monitoring than a Crown service is insulting. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Leech: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 36, page 20, line 36, at end insert—
‘()The Secretary of State shall draw up a Code of Practice setting out the powers and appropriate practices for persons authorised under section 35. The Code—
(a)shall be made by statutory instrument,
(b)may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
Very simply, the amendment would make those authorised under section 35 subject to a code of practice.

Tony McNulty: In three words: unnecessary, redundant and otiose. Subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) give us a monitor and give him the power to inspect from time to time the way in which the powers are exercised, and the ability to investigate and report to the Secretary of State. Far more will be achieved by that monitoring than by any code of practice. The amendment is otiose and should be withdrawn.

John Leech: At this time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Accommodation

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 37, page 21, line 23, at end insert—
‘()In section 99(4) (Provision of support by local authorities) after “section”, insert “4”.’.
In the spirit of the progress that we have made, I will introduce the amendment briefly. It is an important amendment relating to the so-called hard case support. Clause 37 is, in itself, reasonably welcome in that it allows local authorities to provide hard case support under section 4 to the Home Office through NASS in a way that they have previously not been able to do. The amendment would permit local authorities to incur expenditure in preparing proposals for entering into arrangements to provide support. I think that that is necessary.
We know that there is a problem with the so-called hard case support, in that it is unfortunate that people should be left in such a situation at all. We know from the Library briefing that the number of people successfully applying for hard case support has increased, mainly, although not entirely, due to large numbers of Iraqis finding that their asylum applications have not been successful but that it has not been possible to remove them. With large numbers in such a situation, how people survive is a problem. Hard case support provides for accommodation only, and it has not been clear—and still is not—how people survive in respect of food.
The understanding was that the accommodation should be full board, but I am led to believe that that is the case in only 10 per cent. of cases. Vouchers have to be used, meaning that we are returning to the voucher situation that we thought we had seen the back of when the Government dropped that policy. A number of issues are raised by the clause and the amendment, but in particular the need to ensure that local authorities can incur expenditure in providing for entering into arrangements to provide support. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment and I look forward to hearing his response.

Neil Gerrard: There is an issue about extending section 4 powers to local authorities, which is probably necessary given the number of people who are now supported through section 4. Before Report and Third Reading, I hope that the Minister might consider whether, in extending the powers to local authorities, he will also move away from the voucher-only support that we have now and that local authorities will presumably provide if the clause comes into force.
It used to be that people who were supported under section 4 were given cash, or some cash, but cash support has now been completely withdrawn. There is no question but that that causes problems. I recently saw someone who is being supported under section 4, whose circumstances indicate that she is likely to be on such support for some time before there is any possibility of returning her to her country of origin. She is being issued with luncheon vouchers, and so can  buy food and drink, but it is virtually impossible for her to buy anything else with them. As with the previous voucher system, that situation generates a trade in which people sell their luncheon vouchers for a bit of cash to buy things that they cannot buy with the vouchers or to get on a bus to go somewhere.
There is a real issue here, which I hope the Minister will consider. I know that there is a claim that the Home Office has had legal advice that cash cannot be provided, but the citizens advice bureau has had legal advice to the opposite effect. In extending the power to local authorities, which is probably necessary because of the number of people concerned, I hope that before we get to Report stage, the Minister will reconsider the provision of cash rather than voucher-only support.

Tony McNulty: Of course I will consider my hon. Friend’s point. I do not know if we can address the matter in the Bill, as it is more about practicalities than any point of statutory substance or import, but I am happy to consider it further.
I shall not go down the road of debating section 4, and certainly not on the misinformed terms of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. Suffice it to say that we are talking about people whose every avenue has been entirely exhausted—people, including Iraqis, who have a voluntary return route. Hundreds have already returned, and hundreds are in the pool to do so. To suggest that they have no safe route back and are restricted to a twilight zone of section 4 is wrong. That is not the case at all. I shall not have that debate, however misinformed the hon. Gentleman is. I want to be nice, because the amendment—

Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I just said that I shall not indulge in that debate, and I have not said anything else about the amendment, so I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene because that would elongate the debate that I just said we will not have.
We do not intend that the clause should do anything more than that which prevails under sections 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act, which allows a degree of reasonable expenditure for the preparation of proposals under what will be the new provision. That is entirely fair. In that spirit, if the amendment is withdrawn, I will happily consider it further to establish whether we need to clarify the issue of section 4 support, and the role of local authorities. There is a fair point under all the misinformed muddle of the other issue.

Evan Harris: I do not know whether to resent what the Minister says or be grateful—whether to laugh or cry. In the spirit of what he said about the amendment, I shall withdraw it. Clearly, it is not for any one member of the Committee to decide what we can debate; that is your remit, Sir Nicholas. I hope that in the clause stand part debate, the Minister will go out of his way—he may find that he is not really going out of his way—to clarify, briefly, what he believes to be the misunderstandings in this area. I wait to hear what he comes up with.

Tony McNulty: With respect, Sir Nicholas, I shall not wait for the stand part debate, but will tell the hon. Gentleman now. The notion that section 4 cases concern those whom it is not possible to return, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase, is factually inaccurate in most cases under section 4—that is, those Iraqis from north Iraq. That is not the case. It is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact.

Evan Harris: I accept that intervention, if that is what I am being asked to do, but shall return to the issue briefly in the clause stand part debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 37, page 21, line 44, at end insert—
‘(6)Section 9 (Failed Asylum seekers: withdrawal of support) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.19) shall cease to have effect.’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this we may discuss amendment No. 106, in schedule 3, page 30, line 24, at end add—
 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19). Section (9)’.

Neil Gerrard: The amendment would repeal section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I am concerned about the way in which the section operates.
Section 9 was introduced to withdraw support from asylum-seeking families with children who had reached the end of the process. They had reached the point at which their claim had been refused and appeals had been lost, but they were failing to leave the UK voluntarily. The section was clearly designed to put pressure on families to leave voluntarily. That was made absolutely clear in the short debate on section 9 at the time.
Section 9 is being implemented in three pilot areas. As I understand it, all National Asylum Support Service-supported families are being sent the first-stage letter under section 9 when their appeals process has been exhausted. The letter advises them that they will not continue to be supported by NASS and that they should make arrangements to leave the UK. That is as far as it goes for most families, however. It is only for families in the pilot areas where the second and subsequent stages of the process are pursued. Between 100 and 150 families have been taken through the pilot process so far.
Some of us were concerned when section 9 was debated that it would not have the effects that the Government intended it to have. Yes, it would make families destitute, but it would not encourage them to leave voluntarily, which was supposedly the argument for its introduction. We have seen from what is happening so far that our fears were justified. As far as I am aware, no families have returned voluntarily to their country of origin as a result of being subject to the  section 9 provisions. What has happened is that many of them have disappeared. They have moved from where they were living and are probably on somebody else’s floor somewhere. The Home Office will have lost touch with them; it will not even know where they are. That is exactly what one might expect from that type of provision.
The other area that is causing considerable concern is how the failure of families to return home voluntarily is having an impact on local authorities, and that concern extends to the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. There is a real conflict between the requirements of section 9 and the requirements of the Children Act 1989, under which a positive duty is placed on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. Part of that duty is therefore to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, whereas section 9, when carried to its logical conclusion, means that the children will end up in care and the parents will end up with no support whatever from the local authority.
I understand that several local authorities in the Greater Manchester area, with the support of others from Yorkshire and London—the three pilot areas—have written to the Home Secretary asking for a review of the way in which the policy is operating before it is rolled out across the country. I hope that the Government will conduct such a review, and that they will make public the results of it and their evaluation of the way in which the pilots are operating. It strikes me that the policy is developing in a way that is doing no one any good whatever. It is certainly doing the families no good, and it is not achieving the voluntary returns that the Home Office wanted it to achieve.
I appreciate that the alternatives are probably quite unpleasant in some ways. If someone is refusing point blank to leave voluntarily and the Home Office does not operate section 9, that almost certainly means that their return must be enforced. No one likes the business of people knocking on a family’s door early in the morning and taking them into detention. However, I also appreciate that that must be done if it is absolutely necessary to remove someone who is simply refusing point blank to go when they have no right to remain in the country. Frankly, I would rather that that was done, unpleasant though it might be, than using destitution as a weapon to try to push people into returning.
I might think again if there is evidence that the policy is working and is actually leading to voluntary returns, but the evidence suggests that it is not. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he proposes to develop the use of section 9 and how he proposes to respond to what is coming back from the pilots.

Evan Harris: I support what the hon. Gentleman says. What is the timetable for the planned roll-out of the policy beyond the pilot areas? Intrinsic to that, what assessment is being made of how it has worked so far? In particular, what outcome measures will be used generally to determine whether it has been a success? I ask that because, in addition to the points made by the  hon. Gentleman, there is also concern that the implementation of section 9 leads to some families disappearing and going underground in order, presumably, to work illicitly—or at least to find money illicitly—which cannot be a happy outcome.
Without repeating what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to put on record the Liberal Democrats’ support for his proposal.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his ingenuity in squeezing in a debate on section 9 in our debate on clause 37. It is certainly a topical matter. I thank him, too, for the way in which he introduced it. He is entirely right; these families have exhausted all rights of appeal and all legal status to be in this country. I have said time and time again as an Immigration Minister that I would far rather reach the point at which there was never an enforced return and that people returned voluntarily when they reached the end of the line.
We could argue the point about who is enforcing what on whom, but I suggest that by not co-operating on the voluntary return, and therefore maintaining support until such a return, the family put themselves in that position. If there is any fault, it is theirs. However, there are concerns about the interplay with the Children Act 1989 and about a range of other matters. That is why we have made it clear that there will be a full review and evaluation of the current position before any attempt is made to implement section 9 on a national basis.
For completeness, I think that in the pilot areas support has been withdrawn in 38 or 39 individual cases. My hon. Friend is entirely right; no one has returned yet on a voluntary basis, but in 15 cases the paperwork is being processed with a view to return. The thing is in the balance, and I happily give the Committee an undertaking that the review and assessment will take place before any roll-out—or implementation, for those who prefer English to strangled American managerialese.
I understand the concerns. My hon. Friend is right that colleagues in the north-west have written to me to explore the matter further. As for the evaluations starting in the next couple of weeks, some cases at least had to go through the relevant process before there could be any attempt to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of the clause, but that will happen.
I have tried to ensure, too, that not only the Home Office and NASS, but also the Department for Education and Skills—given the concerns about the 1989 Act—will be involved in the evaluation process. I shall make the results of the evaluation process, or at least the headline figures, as public as I can so that there will be time for debate before we move on to national implementation of section 9.
I can say without pre-empting the outcome of the valuation at all—not being interested in courting controversy for the sake of it—that if section 9 works and achieves what we want post-evaluation we may well go in that direction. I am not interested in what is apparently a hard-edged, nasty bogeyman measure that does not achieve what we want. I shall view the  evaluation in that context. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in obtaining a debate on that, and gently ask him to withdraw the amendment and await the outcome of the evaluation.

Neil Gerrard: I thank the Minister for his point about ingenuity. However, my amendment was clearly in order or you would not have selected it, Sir Nicholas, and I think he is pushing the point a little far.

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I never suggested that it was out of order. I think that he should take the compliment and move on.

Neil Gerrard: Very well. I thank the Minister for what he said about evaluation. It is important that before such a measure is pushed out the pilot process is properly evaluated. That should be as public as possible, and I also thank him for what he said about that.
I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that we will return to the matter when the results of the evaluation of the pilots are available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I have three questions for the Minister. First, does he intend that under clause 37 local authorities should provide full board, or does he intend them to provide vouchers for food, with the problems that we heard about earlier in finding money for transport for signing on or other purposes, or for essentials such as sanitary provisions? Or is it intended that there should be a choice? Do the Government have a view?
 6.15 pm Secondly, on the question of whether the people subject to section 4 were unable to return, if I have the wrong perception about the generality of cases or individual cases, I am not the only one. The Library briefing talks about “destitute failed asylum seekers who are prevented from returning home are in some cases eligible for accommodation under section 4”. Indeed, the Refugee Council, which the Minister might arguably expect to get it wrong, believes that this refers to “asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who are unable to return to their country of origin.” Clearly some could, but do not. If one looks at the countries of origin of successful applicants, such as Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, there will be cases where people are not able to return and yet they face these difficulties. Thirdly, what will happen in relation to hard case support for people from Zimbabwe? In a recent case, the tribunal argued that they should not and could not be returned home. They will therefore be in the position that we are talking about where the clause impacts. Although the Minister felt that his change of Column Number: 239 policy and the subsequent appeal against that drove a coach and horses through asylum control, we are nevertheless dealing with people who are in this position. Does he imagine the clause will apply to that group of people? I should be grateful if he could answer those three questions. Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, I shall not, because the clause relates to the powers enabling local authorities to provide section 4 accommodation. Try as I may, I cannot see how any of those three questions are germane to the clause. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to put motivations in my head or words in my mouth about what value I put on documents from the Refugee Council. I know and respect that organisation and I thank him not to cast aspersions on my behalf about what my view is of the quality of its briefing. The hon. Gentleman asks what clause 37 is about. It is about affording powers to local authorities, not available up to now in terms of section 4 accommodation. That is all that it is about, and not the other matters—certainly not Zimbabwe—and everything else that he is asking me to discuss under the clause. I shall resist that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 Integration loans Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 38, page 22, leave out from beginning of line 2 to second ‘for’ in line 3 and insert— ‘(1)Section 13 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (integration loan for refugees) shall be amended as follows. (2)In subsection (1) for “to refugees.” substitute “— (a)to refugees, and (b)to such other classes of person, or to persons other than refugees in such circumstances, as the regulations may prescribe.” (3)In subsection (2)(b)’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 62. Andy Burnham: The amendment will enable the Government to extend eligibility for integration loans to other categories of migrants. As such, I hope that it would be broadly welcomed by the Committee. As currently defined, eligibility for an integration loan extends only to those who have been granted full refugee status. We believe that the legislation should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the inclusion of further categories in future. For example, those granted humanitarian protection under article 3 of the European convention are subject to many of the same policies as those granted refugee status. We believe that there may be a strong case for affording that group of people the same treatment in this regard too. Column Number: 240 As currently drafted, the legislation would not enable us to provide an integration loan to some beneficiaries of the gateway protection programme. It is a resettlement programme whereby refugees have so far been resettled in parts of Bolton and Sheffield. We are talking here about those who have gone through the most traumatic and difficult experiences. We certainly want them to be able to begin their new lives in this country with the most support we could give them. That is why the Bill seeks to extend our flexibility to provide that support more widely to people under that programme. People under the gateway programme are instead given indefinite leave to remain outside the immigration rules. We are suggesting in the amendments that there is considerable merit in ensuring consistency of treatment. Such categories, as is often the case with immigration law, are defined by policy rather than legislation, and are therefore not apt for inclusion in primary legislation. That is why the two categories that I have just mentioned are not mentioned specifically in the amendment before us. We are seeking to make provision to extend eligibility to an integration loan by order, parliamentary approval for which will be by affirmative resolution. I hope that members of the Committee will feel that the amendments are to be welcomed. They extend support to people who are trying to create a new life in this country, and who need our support and our warmth at a time when they are most isolated. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 62, in clause 38, page 22, line 5, at end insert— ‘(4)In subsection (3)(a)(iii) after “as a refugee” insert “or since some other event)”. (5)In subsection (3)(h) for “refugee” substitute “person”. (6)The heading to the section becomes “Integration loans for refugees and others”.’.—[Andy Burnham.] Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Dr. Harris: This is a small point, but it relates to the substantive matter of clause 38, which is to change the term “indefinite leave to remain” to “granted him leave to enter or remain”, for some of the reasons that the Minister has already explained. It relates to the Government’s decision to provide for refugees, who are to be given in the first instance only five years’ leave and then a review. Does the Minister foresee any opportunity for the House of Commons to debate that policy change on a substantive motion? Clearly it is not appropriate to vote on it on a clause stand part debate, but it is a significant alteration to previous Government policy and does not, as I understand it, require primary legislation per se. However, it is important because it affects how long people feel able to be settled here, whether they can be settled here, or whether there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Moving from the indefinite to the specific, in this and other Column Number: 241 areas, has implications. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he foresees an opportunity for us to debate and vote on that at another time, if not now. Edward Miliband (Doncaster, North) (Lab): Given the Committee’s wish to get on, could the Minister, following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, take the opportunity to say something about the definition of refugee status that is implicit in the clause? In particular, can he comment on the notion that if conditions in the country of origin improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect people to return? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that “the change which has taken place in the country must be fundamental—not a mere transitory change in the facts surrounding the individual refugee’s fear.” Can the Minister reassure refugees and their representatives that he agrees with that definition, and that countries’ circumstances must be fundamental? Furthermore, can he reassure us that the power to declare that circumstances have changed will be used only in exceptional cases, such as where there has been a temporary upheaval that has caused a mass movement of individuals? That must be an exceptional power, and it must not be envisaged that it will be used generally. I witnessed a debate to which the Minister responded and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow spoke on 10 October. The Minister said: “I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 134.] I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity briefly to expand on that. Andy Burnham: Some valid points have been made, and I seek to respond to them all. First, let me pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. There was an opportunity to discuss these matters during a debate in the House called by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which was attended by one of his Front-Bench colleagues. It was a very good debate, and extremely well attended for an Adjournment debate. The matter at issue was part of the Government’s five-year strategy announced earlier this year. It was also part of my party’s election manifesto, so there has already been a significant opportunity to consider the change. The clause amends the definition of a refugee for the purpose of providing access to an integration loan, so that it refers to a person whom the Secretary of State has recognised as a refugee, and who has been given leave, rather than indefinite leave, to enter or remain in the UK. Thus the clause brings the provision of integration loans into line with the new policy of granting refugees five years’ limited leave to remain in the first instance. In response to some of the points that have been made, it is important to say that this provision is entirely in keeping with the principles of the 1951 Column Number: 242 refugee convention. I would refer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to that document, because it enshrines the principle that leave does not have to be indefinite or permanent; people are afforded protection by a country for as long as they need that protection. This change to five years’ limited leave is entirely in keeping with the principles of the convention, and it brings our policy into line with that operated by many other European countries. Dr. Harris: I fully accept that, and I want to ask whether the Minister thinks that it will represent a substantial change in practice. After five years, will not many asylum seekers have developed roots in this country, making their removal, even if their refugee status is taken away, difficult on human rights grounds? Is it likely that people will go back in such circumstances, or is he merely making the point that we need go no further, as he rightly says, than fulfilling our obligations under the 1951 convention? Secondly, on the question of whether the people subject to section 4 were unable to return, if I have the wrong perception about the generality of cases or individual cases, I am not the only one. The Library briefing talks about
“destitute failed asylum seekers who are prevented from returning home are in some cases eligible for accommodation under section 4”.
Indeed, the Refugee Council, which the Minister might arguably expect to get it wrong, believes that this refers to
“asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected but who are unable to return to their country of origin.”
Clearly some could, but do not. If one looks at the countries of origin of successful applicants, such as Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, there will be cases where people are not able to return and yet they face these difficulties.
Thirdly, what will happen in relation to hard case support for people from Zimbabwe? In a recent case, the tribunal argued that they should not and could not be returned home. They will therefore be in the position that we are talking about where the clause impacts. Although the Minister felt that his change of  policy and the subsequent appeal against that drove a coach and horses through asylum control, we are nevertheless dealing with people who are in this position. Does he imagine the clause will apply to that group of people? I should be grateful if he could answer those three questions.

Tony McNulty: With the best will in the world, I shall not, because the clause relates to the powers enabling local authorities to provide section 4 accommodation. Try as I may, I cannot see how any of those three questions are germane to the clause. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to put motivations in my head or words in my mouth about what value I put on documents from the Refugee Council. I know and respect that organisation and I thank him not to cast aspersions on my behalf about what my view is of the quality of its briefing.
The hon. Gentleman asks what clause 37 is about. It is about affording powers to local authorities, not available up to now in terms of section 4 accommodation. That is all that it is about, and not the other matters—certainly not Zimbabwe—and everything else that he is asking me to discuss under the clause. I shall resist that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Integration loans

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 38, page 22, leave out from beginning of line 2 to second ‘for’ in line 3 and insert—
‘(1)Section 13 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (integration loan for refugees) shall be amended as follows.
(2)In subsection (1) for “to refugees.” substitute “—
(a)to refugees, and
(b)to such other classes of person, or to persons other than refugees in such circumstances, as the regulations may prescribe.”
(3)In subsection (2)(b)’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 62.

Andy Burnham: The amendment will enable the Government to extend eligibility for integration loans to other categories of migrants. As such, I hope that it would be broadly welcomed by the Committee. As currently defined, eligibility for an integration loan extends only to those who have been granted full refugee status. We believe that the legislation should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the inclusion of further categories in future. For example, those granted humanitarian protection under article 3 of the European convention are subject to many of the same policies as those granted refugee status. We believe that there may be a strong case for affording that group of people the same treatment in this regard too.
As currently drafted, the legislation would not enable us to provide an integration loan to some beneficiaries of the gateway protection programme. It is a resettlement programme whereby refugees have so far been resettled in parts of Bolton and Sheffield. We are talking here about those who have gone through the most traumatic and difficult experiences. We certainly want them to be able to begin their new lives in this country with the most support we could give them. That is why the Bill seeks to extend our flexibility to provide that support more widely to people under that programme.
People under the gateway programme are instead given indefinite leave to remain outside the immigration rules. We are suggesting in the amendments that there is considerable merit in ensuring consistency of treatment. Such categories, as is often the case with immigration law, are defined by policy rather than legislation, and are therefore not apt for inclusion in primary legislation. That is why the two categories that I have just mentioned are not mentioned specifically in the amendment before us.
We are seeking to make provision to extend eligibility to an integration loan by order, parliamentary approval for which will be by affirmative resolution. I hope that members of the Committee will feel that the amendments are to be welcomed. They extend support to people who are trying to create a new life in this country, and who need our support and our warmth at a time when they are most isolated. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 62, in clause 38, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
‘(4)In subsection (3)(a)(iii) after “as a refugee” insert “or since some other event)”.
(5)In subsection (3)(h) for “refugee” substitute “person”.
(6)The heading to the section becomes “Integration loans for refugees and others”.’.—[Andy Burnham.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: This is a small point, but it relates to the substantive matter of clause 38, which is to change the term “indefinite leave to remain” to
“granted him leave to enter or remain”,
for some of the reasons that the Minister has already explained. It relates to the Government’s decision to provide for refugees, who are to be given in the first instance only five years’ leave and then a review. Does the Minister foresee any opportunity for the House of Commons to debate that policy change on a substantive motion? Clearly it is not appropriate to vote on it on a clause stand part debate, but it is a significant alteration to previous Government policy and does not, as I understand it, require primary legislation per se. However, it is important because it affects how long people feel able to be settled here, whether they can be settled here, or whether there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Moving from the indefinite to the specific, in this and other  areas, has implications. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he foresees an opportunity for us to debate and vote on that at another time, if not now.

Edward Miliband: Given the Committee’s wish to get on, could the Minister, following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, take the opportunity to say something about the definition of refugee status that is implicit in the clause? In particular, can he comment on the notion that if conditions in the country of origin improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect people to return?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that
“the change which has taken place in the country must be fundamental—not a mere transitory change in the facts surrounding the individual refugee’s fear.”
Can the Minister reassure refugees and their representatives that he agrees with that definition, and that countries’ circumstances must be fundamental? Furthermore, can he reassure us that the power to declare that circumstances have changed will be used only in exceptional cases, such as where there has been a temporary upheaval that has caused a mass movement of individuals? That must be an exceptional power, and it must not be envisaged that it will be used generally.
I witnessed a debate to which the Minister responded and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow spoke on 10 October. The Minister said:
“I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 134.]
I should be grateful if he would take this opportunity briefly to expand on that.

Andy Burnham: Some valid points have been made, and I seek to respond to them all. First, let me pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. There was an opportunity to discuss these matters during a debate in the House called by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which was attended by one of his Front-Bench colleagues. It was a very good debate, and extremely well attended for an Adjournment debate. The matter at issue was part of the Government’s five-year strategy announced earlier this year. It was also part of my party’s election manifesto, so there has already been a significant opportunity to consider the change.
The clause amends the definition of a refugee for the purpose of providing access to an integration loan, so that it refers to a person whom the Secretary of State has recognised as a refugee, and who has been given leave, rather than indefinite leave, to enter or remain in the UK. Thus the clause brings the provision of integration loans into line with the new policy of granting refugees five years’ limited leave to remain in the first instance.
In response to some of the points that have been made, it is important to say that this provision is entirely in keeping with the principles of the 1951  refugee convention. I would refer the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to that document, because it enshrines the principle that leave does not have to be indefinite or permanent; people are afforded protection by a country for as long as they need that protection. This change to five years’ limited leave is entirely in keeping with the principles of the convention, and it brings our policy into line with that operated by many other European countries.

Evan Harris: I fully accept that, and I want to ask whether the Minister thinks that it will represent a substantial change in practice. After five years, will not many asylum seekers have developed roots in this country, making their removal, even if their refugee status is taken away, difficult on human rights grounds? Is it likely that people will go back in such circumstances, or is he merely making the point that we need go no further, as he rightly says, than fulfilling our obligations under the 1951 convention?

Andy Burnham: Let me briefly explain a little more about how the provisions will work. That might give the hon. Gentleman some of the assurances that he seeks. In particular, let me pick up the very valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband). He attended the debate in the House—I was pleased to see him there—when we had a good exchange on these issues.
The clause relates to the award of a loan, and to ensuring that people have access to the support that they need to establish their lives here. I ask all members of the Committee to consider that the very fact that we are making the loan available to people granted five years’ leave suggests that we are keen to help them to create a new life here. The purpose of the loan is to enable them to put down roots, to find their feet in their new communities; it is about good integration. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
The policy would allow a five-year review of cases, in order to assess whether conditions in country had changed significantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North was right to mention the word “fundamental”. I assure all hon. Members that an in-depth review would not be conducted for every case. In the vast majority of cases, the review would go no further than confirming that there had been no such change and that the full protection of this country should apply in the form of indefinite leave.
I want to assure hon. Members that in the vast majority of cases an in-depth review would not be relevant. It is possible to speculate on what countries could have been captured within the terms of this provision, but I stress at this point that it is just speculation to discuss whether in the last five years there could have been a permanent and fundamental improvement in the in-country conditions in some of the countries from which people have sought asylum. Perhaps we are talking about some of the countries in the Balkans; I am not sure. We may be talking about Nigeria, but again I am not sure. Some people who sought asylum from the Abacha regime could now possibly return to a part of their country where they  would not be at risk, but that is all speculation. It is actually difficult to think of countries that would qualify for a review of status.
The purpose of the change that we announced in the five-year strategy was simply to align our system with the refugee convention and to ensure that we would honour our commitments to give people full protection for as long as they needed it, but without creating a pull factor for immigration into this country. However—this is the purpose of the clause—it is fully our intention that, where such protection is granted, we should help people to integrate well and in such a way that they can add to the community to which they have become attached. That would not involve just a refugee integration loan; it could involve help from a caseworker under the SUNRISE—Strategic Upgrade of National Refugee Integration Services—scheme or a range of other support that Government Members remain committed to keeping in place. That is why the clause is important. Given the comments that I have made, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Inspection of detention facilities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I have four quick points. The clause is designed to regularise the position regarding inspections of establishments currently carried out by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. As I understand it, what is happening in practice is being enshrined in statute. First, with regard to proposed new subsection (5B)(a), could the Minister provide us with a list of all centres, facilities and arrangements that currently exist in the United Kingdom and that come under these short-term holding facilities or other facilities or arrangements?
Secondly, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons is constantly under-resourced in this area. As the Minister is putting matters on a statutory footing, will he consider what additional resources may be needed by HMCIP? Thirdly, will the National Offender Management Service proposals—for which we are awaiting the draft legislation yet again, because the Government cannot get their act together—affect any of these provisions? Lastly, if we are putting the chief inspector of prisons on a statutory footing, what is the position regarding the prisons ombudsman?

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Lady suggests, clause 39 simply puts on a statutory footing that which already prevails. On the detailed questions that she asks, I am happy to write to her, but most of our ports have non-residential holding rooms, as do our immigration  service enforcement offices. This measure will cover four residential facilities, at Colnbrook, Manchester airport, Dover and Harwich, but it simply regularises the position that prevails at the moment. The hon. Lady’s questions, albeit interesting, are not a matter for debate today, but as I said, I will happily write to her.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Removal: cancellation of leave

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I do not want to have a long debate on this matter, but I want to return to the question that this clause again raises of how people who will effectively be made destitute will be looked after. When that issue was raised during the debate on clause 37, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, who represents Harrow—

Tony McNulty: Not all of Harrow.

Evan Harris: West?

Tony McNulty: East.

Evan Harris: Harrow, East. The Minister was unwilling to engage or even to answer the basic question in relation to clause 37 about whether he expected local authorities to provide full board or vouchers. The reason why it is important to debate in Committee how people will be looked after who are made destitute by the removal of their leave under the provisions of clauses 1 and 9 together with clause 40, is that this matter was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, in response to her question the Home Secretary said:
“I am certainly prepared to consider the point in Committee, but I do not accept my hon. Friend’s description of the impact of clause 37.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 199.]
Although I understand that the Committee is under some pressure of time, it would be helpful if the Minister would address the question, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, of how people will pay for things that are necessary for a decent and civilised existence—not just food, which can be bought with food vouchers, but essential transport costs, modest communication costs and other things such as sanitary provision. That is not an unreasonable question, and this clause, taken together with clauses 1 and 9, leaves it open and unanswered.
I accept that the Minister said that he would look at the way clause 9 would work, and I am not ungrateful for that. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to address the point relating to what happens under section 4 with the operation of clause 37, because clause 40 will leave people reliant on section 4—hard case funding.

Tony McNulty: The only issue of substance in that regard is the difference and gap between the cancellation of leave and removal. I made it clear during the debate on clause 1 on appeals that we would examine that gap and not leave people in limbo. I am happy to give that assurance again in terms of any cancellation of leave.
I will also say that the hon. Gentleman should get his language right. These people are not “made destitute”; they make themselves destitute by not taking steps to remove themselves because they have rendered themselves illegal in terms of their presence in the UK by exhausting all other avenues. Language, as I have said on several occasions in this Committee, is important. The state is not making those individuals destitute; it is they themselves who do so, on their terms, by their choices, because they seek to continue in an illegal position in the UK. That must be an integral part of a progressive asylum process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 42 - Procedure

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in clause 42, page 23, line 22, leave out from ‘paid’ to end of line 24.
The general point that the amendment addresses is whether the requirement for making applications and changes to the procedure should be just administrative or whether those changes should be made in the immigration rules or confined to regulations. Clause 42 is extremely broad, particularly in its reference to
“whether or not under those rules or any other enactment.”
The amendment is probing, and seeks clarification of subsection (2), and what scrutiny will be given to procedures under it, as opposed to the rules under subsection (1). Subsection (2) is troubling. The Secretary of State makes laws on immigration applications and makes the immigration rules. New situations arise that require the development of practices and policies not yet embodied in the rules. In the past, some concessions have been slow to find their way into the rules; one example is the changes and the concession that was made on domestic violence. The concession or policy might be set out in a letter, described at a meeting or noted in policy instructions. Although the latter are available on the Home Office website, it is difficult for members of the public to negotiate it and to seek out that information, especially if they are not legally qualified.
It is therefore not easy in those circumstances for individuals to know what the law is, nor to conform their conduct to it. While it may be embodied in a concession that the Secretary of State requires certain information, it would not be reasonable to give him powers to create a mandatory procedure with serious penalties if it were not followed. If a concession  requires to be formalised in that way, surely it can be incorporated into the immigration rules or regulations.
I am also keen to probe the power in both subsections that makes provision for the consequences of failure to comply. Could an inadvertent failure to comply with a technical requirement by a specified time, result in refusal of an application? The forms are complex, English is often not the first language of the people concerned and access to legal advice is not always what it could be. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those points on this probing amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: Because the amendment covers not only the area we are discussing but that of fees—

Tony McNulty: It does not cover fees.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister says that it does not cover fees. Clause 42 mentioned fees.

Tony McNulty: To be fair to the hon. Lady, the proposal is about specified forms and procedures for applications or claims. Fees are more readily considered in substance in clause 43. Clause 42 is in essence about not coming back to the House with a statutory instrument every time that IND wants to change something on a form. I take the hon. Gentleman’s points about the amendment, which I am happy to consider to see whether it can more readily be put into rules rather than being in statute.
There must be some sanction against non-compliance; reality must be impose4 in terms of inadvertent compliance but I am happy to consider whether it should be in the Bill or in regulation In substance, that means that we move away from the present ludicrous position in which every time there is a change to any substantive form available in this area it has to be made under statutory instruments. There is parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny, which is probably not terribly helpful, partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested, and for a range of other reasons. I am happy to look at amendment No. 129, but I urge hon. Members to accept clause 42.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider the proposal. I always look at the statutory instrument list when the title is understandable and is a subject that is in my area, and when I have responsibility for immigration matters I ensure that proposed changes in immigration rules are looked at and if necessary prayed against. That is our right; perhaps it is not used as often as it might be but that is not to say that it is not a right that we would seek to preserve, as opposed to having less scrutiny.
In the light of what the Minister said about looking at the proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Fees

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 43, page 24, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 133, in clause 43, page 24, line 11, at end insert
‘provided the fee is not greater than the actual cost to the Home Office of dealing with application made’.
No. 134, in clause 43, page 24, line 13, at end insert
‘in particular when leave is granted for a shorter period than requested, provided that the period requested does not exceed the maximum permissible for such an application, the fee may be reduced’.

Evan Harris: I was looking at the old list, which put the amendments under clause 44, and looking forward to hearing the general comment on that clause.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. There is a revised amendment list and it is forming the programme of debate in this Committee.

Evan Harris: Clearly, that is correct. As soon as I heard the amendment being called, I saw the new list and it became clear that this is what we do. I have no problem with that.
There is a debate to be had about fees, but I am concerned, given people’s wish to make progress, about how far we can go into that without coming back at half-past 8 unnecessarily—or necessarily—for only a short time.
Therefore, I will launch straight into an explanation of amendment No. 132. It proposes to leave out subsection (2)(c), which states:
“the provision on request of advice in connection with immigration or nationality, or”.
Leaving that provision out would simply preserve the current situation, whereby the Home Office does not officially give advice to individuals and does not charge for that advice—the advice that it does not officially give. Its telephone inquiry bureau and public caller officers may give information about the rules and evidence required but we would all accept that it is wholly inappropriate for them to advise on whether to make an application. On that basis, if it is inappropriate for the Home Office to give advice as a party to an application or appeal, it must be wrong for it to charge for it.

Tony McNulty: There is no intention under this bit of the clause to charge individuals for any advice given in terms of their individual cases or mandatory requirements. We reserve the right in terms of representatives or agents, but not in relation to individuals.

Evan Harris: I understand the point that the Minister makes and I will reflect on what he said.
In an attempt to move things on, I will discuss amendment No. 133. I think that the Minister will short-circuit again and I welcome it.

Tony McNulty: The amendment is reflected in Treasury policy, so it is unnecessary.

Evan Harris: There is a question to respond to, although I understand the point that the Minister is making: should the Government make a profit or a net return from those fees? As I understand it, when the Home Office first introduced charging for applications, the then Home Office Minister wrote on 23 September 2003 to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The letter said:
“The fees are set under Treasury rules to recover the full administrative cost entailed in considering applications and no more. This is calculated by taking the overall costs of processing applications divided by the number of decisions we expect to make.”
I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that there is nothing in the clause that changes that.

Tony McNulty: Let me do it now. There would need to be an express power in legislation in order to recover more than the full cost of the application. The important thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s comments is entirely right and there would need to be legislative change for that to be otherwise.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister. We seem to be doing things in a relatively efficient way.
The reason why I am seeking to probe on amendment No. 134 is to ensure that people who are granted shorter periods of leave, and therefore need to apply for more frequent extensions, are not penalised in the sense that they have to pay disproportionately for that. The immigration rules, as the Minister will know, state the most common periods of leave for which people will be allowed to stay. For example, a student on a degree course should be given leave for the whole of the course, which is normally three years. A person with a work permit will normally be given five years. If students are given a one-year stay instead of three years, they could end up paying the fee three times over, which would not be the case otherwise.

Tony McNulty: Purely for completeness rather than to prolong the ping-pong, I must say that it costs the same amount to process a failed application form, an application form that in the end gets less than applied for, and one that gets the full amount applied for. If we are recovering full costs, the amendment makes no logical sense.

Evan Harris: Given the answers that I have received, and on the understanding that nobody else wants to discuss this group, I think it is best to say that I will not put the amendment. I do not know whether I must formally seek leave to withdraw the amendment, because I could say that I am not putting it.

Nicholas Winterton: That is quite in order, because I have not put it from the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman is not putting it, we can dispense with the amendment, with which we were considering two others.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: After my false start in our debate on clause 42, when I thought that
“may direct the manner in which a fee is to be paid”
might have covered what I was going to say, I shall make only two quick points.
I understand that the fee for making any immigration application in person at the Home Office is currently about £500, and that applications by post are £335. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the scale of the charges.
It is worth mentioning that the Legal Services Commission generally allows solicitors to charge for up to three hours’ work for preparing immigration applications and for advising those who are making them. The fee is £172.05 in London and £157.65 outside London. In most cases, checking the application documents after the application has been submitted is actually a lot less complicated than preparing them, and is done by someone who is less qualified than a solicitor, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge.
The Minister should examine the scale of the charges and satisfy himself that he is happy with them, for the simple reason that there must be enormous economies of scale within the Home Office. Will he assure us that he will do so, and that he will see whether there is any possibility of ensuring that the charges are regularly monitored so that they remain affordable rather than exorbitant, which they currently seem to be?
Lastly, there was tremendous lobbying about waiving fees for people granted exceptional discretionary leave up to their 18th birthday. Fees were also waived for children in the care of local authorities and for spouses who have been victims of domestic violence—an issue in which I am particularly interested.
Have the Government considered making a similar provision for no charges to be levied in any other categories? I am thinking particularly of any application made by a child in his or her own right, of an application that is made under the Human Rights Act, the European convention on human rights or any other international convention, or any application made by a person who receives means-tested benefits.

Evan Harris: I am conscious of the time, and I shall shorten my remarks. As the Minister might expect, I want to express alarm about the level of the fees, as the hon. Lady has just done. From April 2005, postal applications have cost £335. That is a huge amount, and the cost is significantly higher, as the hon. Lady said, than we envisaged it would be in 1999.
On 15 April 1999, the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O’Brien), then a Home Office Minister, said in a Special Standing Committee that the fees
“reflect the cost of processing applications ... I do not yet know the number of categories of fee, or the exact fees, but our current estimate for applications for leave to remain and similar applications is £90.”
An increase to £335 suggests that the initial estimates were very wrong.
Finally, there is the question of racial discrimination and the impact on ethnic minorities. The fees fall heavily on people from ethnic minorities, particularly when they are as high as £500, as we have heard, for an application in person. Will the Minister reassure us on that matter, too?

Tony McNulty: First, may I say to the hon. Lady, “Nice try, but I am not about to negotiate exemptions and waivers across the Committee Floor?” I shall respond to her if she wants to pursue the matter in writing.
As far as the other matters are concerned, the fees, which I do not accept are exorbitant, reflect the cost of the process, as we have just discussed. The numbers of applications and everything else across the whole business have increased significantly since the early ’90s, and the fees merely reflect that.
Secondly, I urge the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon at the very least to read the Institute for Public Policy Research report, “Beyond Black and White: Mapping New Immigrant Communities”. The notion that the fees fall disproportionately on ethnic minorities is simply not borne out by the work of the immigration and nationality directorate across the piece. In the gentle south-east, the second and third largest communities of foreign-born people are French and South African. This is not simply a black and white issue. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that and not feed the poisonous idea that this issue is all about race. It is not; it is about migration and border controls in this country, and it goes well beyond race. I do not accept his last point at all.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o’clock till Thursday 27 October at Nine o’clock.